Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A married couple with two minor children experienced significant changes in their financial and professional circumstances during their marriage. The husband started several businesses, including an insurance agency and other ventures with local investors. In early 2023, he faced serious legal and regulatory issues, including a large default judgment and revocation of his insurance and gaming licenses, followed by criminal indictments. Amid these developments, the wife discovered evidence of his extramarital affair and initiated divorce proceedings, seeking an equitable division of marital property and debts. During the divorce, the husband retained counsel and used marital funds to commence a lawsuit against his former business partners to recover money he had invested in their shared businesses.The divorce case was tried in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Lincoln County, South Dakota. Both parties disputed the classification and valuation of assets, notably the pending lawsuit. The husband argued that the lawsuit should be treated as his separate property due to an alleged pretrial agreement. The wife disputed the existence of such an agreement and asserted that the lawsuit was a marital asset. The circuit court found no binding agreement on the lawsuit’s classification, treated the pending lawsuit as marital property, valued it at $350,000 based on the invested retainer and a percentage of the claimed amount, and assigned it to the husband.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in classifying the pending lawsuit as marital property subject to equitable division. The Supreme Court found that the valuation of the lawsuit was not clearly erroneous, as it reasonably reflected the evidence presented at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decisions regarding classification and valuation, and granted the wife’s request for appellate attorney fees. View "King v. King" on Justia Law

A married couple owned a waterfront property in Canada, which was destroyed by fire during their divorce proceedings. The wife, who was living at the Canadian property, disclosed during discovery that there was a single insurance policy with a $2 million Canadian Dollar (CAD) limit covering the property. The parties entered into a stipulation and agreement, incorporated into the divorce decree, which awarded the wife the Canadian property and the related insurance proceeds. Several months later, the husband learned that the wife was actually receiving $4 million CAD in insurance proceeds, not the $2 million CAD previously disclosed. He alleged that the wife had concealed an additional insurance policy and sought relief from the divorce judgment on grounds of fraud.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, South Dakota, reviewed the husband’s motion for relief under SDCL 15-6-60(b)(3). After a hearing based on affidavits and documentary evidence, the court found that the wife had committed fraud by intentionally concealing the additional insurance policy. The court ordered the wife to produce all insurance policies in effect at the time of the fire and directed that any insurance proceeds exceeding $2 million CAD be split equally between the parties, in accordance with their agreement and SDCL 25-4-77. The court also awarded attorney fees to the husband and issued a stay allowing the wife to use the insurance proceeds to rebuild the property, with any excess to be held in trust.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota held that the circuit court’s finding of fraud was not clearly erroneous and affirmed the grant of Rule 60(b) relief. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate division of assets under the current circumstances, given the stay and use of insurance proceeds for reconstruction. The Supreme Court also awarded appellate attorney fees to the husband. View "Trumble v. Trumble" on Justia Law

A couple divorced in 2019, with the husband required to pay monthly alimony to the wife under the terms of their agreement. After the sale of the marital home, the husband’s alimony obligation was set at $13,500 per month. In 2023, the husband relocated to Texas, left his previous employment, and experienced a significant decrease in income. He struggled to meet his alimony obligations, missing several payments, and ultimately sought a reduction in his alimony due to his changed financial circumstances. The wife, whose dental hygiene license had lapsed and who was not employed, relied primarily on alimony for her income and filed a motion for contempt based on the missed payments.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Lincoln County, South Dakota, reviewed the parties’ motions. After considering testimony and financial documentation, the court found the husband’s account of his reduced income credible and determined that his move and employment changes were not made in bad faith or to avoid alimony. The court also found that the wife’s claimed financial needs were not fully credible, noting that some expenses were inflated or related to adult children. The court reduced the husband’s alimony obligation to $6,000 per month effective January 1, 2025, denied the wife’s contempt motion, and declined to make the modification retroactive, reasoning that the wife should have time to adjust to the reduced payments.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s decisions. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the alimony obligation, did not clearly err in denying the contempt motion, and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to apply the modification retroactively. The court’s findings were supported by the evidence and were within the permissible range of judicial decisions. View "Peery v. Peery" on Justia Law

A child, B.M., was born to Cheryl Melius and Lakota Songer, who were no longer in a relationship at the time of birth. Cheryl initially had sole custody and did not inform Lakota of the birth immediately. After B.M. was diagnosed with failure to thrive, Cheryl voluntarily placed the child with her brother, Miles, and his wife, Tori (the Meliuses), who were later granted guardianship. Lakota established paternity and sought custody, but the Meliuses initiated a third-party custody action, leading to a combined proceeding. During the litigation, the Meliuses were granted temporary custody, and Lakota was given stepped-up visitation. The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was found to apply after Lakota disclosed his tribal status.The Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Gregory County, South Dakota, held a trial and found that while the Meliuses had a significant relationship with B.M., they failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that extraordinary circumstances existed to rebut Lakota’s presumptive right to custody under SDCL 25-5-30. The court awarded Lakota sole custody but granted the Meliuses ongoing visitation and ordered Lakota to use a specific daycare provider. The court also assessed attorney fees against Lakota for his late disclosure of tribal status and for contempt related to violating court orders.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the lower court’s finding that the Meliuses did not establish extraordinary circumstances to overcome Lakota’s parental rights and affirmed the denial of non-parent custody. The Supreme Court reversed the award of permanent visitation to the Meliuses, holding that such visitation cannot be granted absent a finding of extraordinary circumstances rebutting the parent’s rights. The Court also reversed the attorney fees related to the tribal status delay, finding the lower court erred in assigning responsibility to Lakota. The issue regarding the daycare provider was deemed moot. The case was remanded to determine attorney fees solely attributable to contempt. View "Melius v. Songer" on Justia Law

A divorced couple with two children has been involved in ongoing litigation over custody and visitation since their separation in 2019. The mother was granted primary physical custody, while both parents shared joint legal custody. The children have consistently resisted visitation with their father, often refusing to interact with him during scheduled exchanges. The father alleged that the mother interfered with his visitation rights and alienated the children, while the mother claimed the children’s reluctance stemmed from the father’s past abuse and alcohol misuse. Over several years, the court ordered various counseling and reunification efforts, but the children continued to avoid contact with their father.After multiple motions and hearings, the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Meade County, South Dakota, ordered a new visitation arrangement in February 2024, requiring the mother to encourage the younger child to attend twice-weekly dinners with the father. Despite the mother’s documented efforts to encourage attendance, the child continued to refuse to participate in the visits. The father moved for sanctions, arguing that the mother’s encouragement was superficial and that she undermined his relationship with the child.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case after the mother appealed the circuit court’s imposition of sanctions, which included civil penalties and attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court had statutory authority under SDCL 25-4A-5 to impose sanctions for willful noncompliance with visitation orders, independent of contempt proceedings. The Court found no clear error in the circuit court’s determination that the mother willfully failed to encourage visitation as required, and it affirmed the imposition of $2,000 in civil penalties and $2,000 in attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order in all respects. View "Lefors v. Lefors" on Justia Law

A woman sought a protection order against her former partner, with whom she shares two minor children, alleging that his actions caused her and the children to fear imminent physical harm. The petition described several incidents, including one where the former partner allegedly pointed a laser through a window at her and one of the children, and another where he handled a firearm after consuming alcohol. The woman also testified to past physical and emotional abuse directed at both her and the children. The former partner denied threatening them with a firearm or laser, asserting that any lasers involved were harmless pointers for the children.The Seventh Judicial Circuit Court in Pennington County, South Dakota, held a hearing and found the woman’s testimony credible. The court determined that the former partner’s conduct, particularly the laser incident, constituted domestic abuse by inflicting fear of imminent physical harm. The court issued a five-year protection order prohibiting all contact between the former partner and the woman and their children. When the former partner later moved to modify the order to allow contact with the children, the court denied the request, despite both parties expressing willingness for supervised visitation and acknowledging that the facility typically used for such visits would not participate due to the nature of the allegations.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the circuit court did not clearly err in finding domestic abuse and did not abuse its discretion in issuing a five-year protection order covering the woman and the children. However, the Supreme Court found that the circuit court abused its discretion by prohibiting all contact between the father and his children for five years without considering the children’s best interests or the parties’ wishes for supervised visitation. The Supreme Court affirmed the protection order in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings to provide for appropriate contact and visitation. View "Wagner v. Tovar" on Justia Law

Charlene Monfore petitioned for guardianship and conservatorship over her mother, Gerda Flyte, who suffers from dementia. Gerda’s son, Roger Flyte, objected and requested to be appointed instead. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court found it was not in Gerda’s best interests to appoint either Charlene or Roger and instead appointed Black Hills Advocate, LLC (BHA), a for-profit corporation. Charlene appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by not appointing her and lacked statutory authority to appoint a for-profit organization.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Fall River County, South Dakota, initially appointed Charlene as temporary guardian and conservator. Roger objected, raising concerns about Gerda’s care under Charlene, including medical neglect and financial mismanagement. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the court found both Charlene and Roger unsuitable due to various concerns, including Charlene’s failure to provide necessary medical care and financial mismanagement, and Roger’s financial irresponsibility and anger issues. The court appointed BHA as guardian and conservator.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint Charlene, given the evidence of her inadequate care and financial mismanagement. However, the Supreme Court found that SDCL 29A-5-110 does not authorize the appointment of for-profit entities as guardians or conservators, except for qualified banks or trust companies as conservators. Therefore, the appointment of BHA was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The court also awarded Roger one-half of his requested appellate attorney fees. View "Guardianship And Conservatorship Of Flyte" on Justia Law

Nicholas and Heather Wasilk, former spouses, share joint legal custody of their three minor children. Heather sought to take the children on vacation to Mexico and requested Nicholas’s consent for their passport applications. Nicholas refused, leading Heather to file a motion for an order directing Nicholas to participate in the passport application process. The circuit court granted Heather’s motion. Nicholas appealed, arguing that the circuit court lacked authority to resolve Heather’s motion, failed to properly weigh the best interests of the children, and infringed on his fundamental parental rights.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Codington County, South Dakota, initially adopted a custody arrangement where Heather had primary physical custody. In 2023, Nicholas sought to modify the custody agreement to include travel restrictions, proposing that the children not leave the continental United States without both parents' consent. The court adopted a modified agreement requiring 45 days' notice for international travel and a court hearing if either parent objected. Heather planned a trip to Mexico and requested Nicholas’s consent for passports, which he refused, citing safety concerns and the child’s medical conditions. The circuit court, after a hearing, ordered Nicholas to cooperate with the passport application process.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, holding that the circuit court had the authority to order Nicholas to participate in the passport application process under 22 C.F.R. § 51.28(c)(2). The court found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the trip was in the best interests of the children, considering the safety measures Heather planned and the benefits of the trip. The court also held that Nicholas’s fundamental parental rights were not infringed, as the best interests of the children standard applied in disputes between parents. View "Wasilk v. Wasilk" on Justia Law

The Department of Social Services (DSS) filed an abuse and neglect petition concerning two minor children, N.K., Jr. and S.K., who are Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The children were taken into emergency temporary custody after their father, N.K., Sr., was arrested for driving under the influence with the children in the car. The children were found to be homeless and in poor condition. The State filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect, and the father admitted to the allegations. Despite DSS providing various services, including substance abuse treatment and visitation arrangements, the father continued to struggle with substance abuse and was repeatedly incarcerated. The mother was largely absent and uncooperative.The Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Gregory County, South Dakota, handled the initial proceedings. The father was served with the petition at an advisory hearing, but no summons was issued or served. The case was transferred between counties due to the father's relocation. The father admitted to the allegations, and DSS provided ongoing services. Despite some progress, the father relapsed and was arrested again, leading to a failed trial reunification. The State filed a petition for termination of parental rights, and the court held a final dispositional hearing.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the failure to issue or serve a summons did not deprive the court of jurisdiction because the father had actual notice of the proceedings. The court also found that termination of parental rights was the least restrictive alternative, given the father's ongoing substance abuse issues and inability to provide a stable environment. Additionally, the court determined that DSS had made active efforts to reunite the family, but these efforts were unsuccessful. The court affirmed the termination of both parents' parental rights. View "Interest Of N.K." on Justia Law

Fawna and Terry Goff were married in 2015 and had one child, M.G. In late 2021, Terry left the marital home in South Dakota for work in Texas and did not return, eventually starting a new relationship. Fawna allowed M.G. to visit Terry in Texas, but Terry refused to return the child. Fawna filed for divorce, and the circuit court granted her a divorce on grounds of adultery, awarded her primary custody of M.G., set child support, divided property, and awarded partial attorney fees to Fawna. Terry appealed.The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Meade County, South Dakota, initially handled the case. Terry did not respond to the divorce complaint in a timely manner, leading Fawna to seek a default judgment. At the default hearing, Terry requested to proceed with the divorce trial, which the court allowed. The court granted Fawna a divorce, primary custody of M.G., and ordered Terry to pay child support and arrearages. Terry was also ordered to pay half of the mortgage on the marital home and awarded his camper. Terry filed for divorce in Texas, but the South Dakota court retained jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the divorce and custody decisions but found that the circuit court abused its discretion in calculating child support arrearages without considering the time M.G. spent with Terry. The court also found that the circuit court failed to make necessary findings regarding the best interests of M.G. in limiting Terry’s visitation to South Dakota and in awarding attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new calculation of arrearages and further findings on visitation and attorney fees. View "Goff v. Goff" on Justia Law